HomeMy WebLinkAboutSB1317 BC Well Data - P Gosselin to L Wolk Sader, Ashley_,
From: Gosselin, Paul
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 3:31 PM
To: I charlie.harris@sen.ca.gov'
Cc: 'Ryan.0jakian@asm,ca.goV; 'James Gallagher - CA Assembly
(Assemblymem ber.Ga I lag her@assembly.ca.g ov); BC S; 'Senator.Nielsen @sen.ca.gov'
Subject: SB1317
Attachments: SB1317 Butte County Well Data.pdf
Senator Wolk
Per your request, I attached the information regarding Butte County well permit applications. If you have any questions
please contact me.
Thank you.
(Pauf Gosselzt4 Director
Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation
308 Nelson Avenue
Oroville,CA 95973
Office:(530)538-3804
Coil: (530)574-7443
Water and Resource Conservation Paul Gosselin, Director
308 Nelson Avenue T: 53M38.4343 I butte county#,net/waterresourceconservation
F:"
Oroville,California 95965 530.538.3807 bcwater@buttecounty.net
1WER a RESOURa==
June 24, 2016
The Honorable Lois Wolk
California State Senate
State Capital Building, Doom 5114
Sacramento, CA 915814
Re. SB1317
Gear Senator Wolk.
In response to your request for Butte County well permit application data, I attached
(Attachment A) data developed by the Butte County Division of Environmental Health.
As this information relates to Senate Bill 1317, li would like to take this opportunity to put
this data into context based on the circumstances in Butte County. A closer
examination of local circumstances demonstrates that making a correlation between
well permit application information and groundwater extraction is flawed. There are
more accurate data and analytical tools available to answer the key questions regarding
groundwater extraction, land use and sustainability. The Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act (SGMA) recognized that the unique local land use and water
management circumstances cannot be managed on a rigid statewide approach.
In Butte County, there are four subbasins that are subject to the SGMA. None of these
basins are in critical overdraft. In these subbasins, the land use, water supply and
groundwater conditions are not homogeneous. Many portions have reliable surface
water,supplies and have not experienced declines in groundwater levels even during
the drought. 'While other areas are solely dependent on groundwater and have
experienced declines in groundwater levels exacerbated during this drought period.
Even within a single county, generalizing groundwater conditions can lead to poor
conclusions and ill-informed management decisions. Butte County aggressively began
assessing data to butter inform management decisions. This approach was built on
Butte County's two decades commitment to manage and protect groundwater based on
sound science and robust analysis. The commitment includes groundwater monitoring
and analysis, water budget, policies and ordinances. The drought emergency prompted
additional data collection including the compilation of well permit application data. The
well permit application data was collected as a preliminary, early indication of drought
related responses. Although the data were useful in assessing drought responses, they
were never intended to indicate changes in water demand. Other analytical
approaches, such as data produced through a water budget, provide better
assessment.
In June 2016, the Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation
released an updated county-wide water budget analysis, entitled "Water Inventory and
Analysis Report"was released. The Water Inventory and Analysis Report can be
viewed athftps://www.buftecounty.nieVwrcdocs/Reports/I&A/201�6DRAFTI&A.pd� . The
Water Inventory and Analysis Report includes land use, groundwater extraction, drought
impacts and the number of installed welds. The report includes data on the number of
installed wells (Attachment B). Key findings include:
Irrigated agricultural acreage has remained constant over the past twenty years.
Additionally, the report found that there is not a likelihood of an increase in
groundwater dependent land.
500 M Irrigated.AMN
griculture on-Irrigated mWetlands El Developed
450
400
350
V
300
=0 250
200
ISO --- .. ........
1010
so
0
1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-20,09 20110-2014
•
Recent decline groundwater level are likely driven mainly by drought conditions,
Less precipitation reduced deep percolation (recharge) and required increased
groundwater pumping. Overall, the amount of groundwater pumping varies
depending upon water year type, but generally remained within a range.
600
Soo
400
V
R'n 0 0549
g300
e.
20o
100
MftoveNormaU 130elowNormal E3Dry WCrW
0 7
19" 2000 2002 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 MS
Waler Year
Therefore, focusing on evaluating new well installations would not be an effective
emergency approach to address groundwater sustainability.
The circumstances regarding the reported increase in well permit applications
demonstrates, other complexities. First, the submission of a well permit application does
not necessarily mean that a well was installed. Even if a well was installed, there is no
certainty that the well went go into production. As we explored the circumstances of the
recent increase in well permit applications (e.g., large diameter), a majority of them
were the result of potential surface water cutbacks to growers who rely on highly reliable
surface water supplies from the Feather River Settlement Contractors. Many of the well
permit applications were submitted in anticipation of a one-in-a-generation surface
water supply cutback. Only about half of the well permit applications ultimately lead to a
well being installed. Some of these new wells were needed in 2015 to make up for the,
temporary surface water supply cutback. These wells will likely not be used for another
generation. In 2016, the area where the wells were used returned to their historic stable
levels (e.g., 5-10 feet below ground surface). This real-world situation raises the
question of the value of mandating a groundwater extraction permit process in every
high and medium priority subbasin.
The circumstances and local conditions in Butte County are not unique. Subbasins
throughout California differ in land use, water availability and groundwater conditions.
As directed by SGMA, a one-size-fits all approach to manage groundwater basins would
be ineffective. The introduction of a state mandated regulatory solution ahead of
groundwater sustainability plan development would jeopardize the successful
implementation of SOMA. The accelerated timetable would force local discussions to
shift away from SCSMA in order to make decisions on the groundwater extraction permit
process with limited or no data. Not only would the approach provide uncertain aquifer
protection, the public would be most harmed by a circumvented public dialogue on
undesirable results. Finally, the ability to re-engage stakeholders after the completion!, of
the groundwater extraction permit process would be highly problematic, The result
would undermine and negate any chance for successful groundwater sustainability
plans, SGIVIA implementation and ultimately achieving the goal of sustainable
groundwater management.
If you need any additional information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Si cere
Paul Gosselin, Director
Attachment A- Butte County Well Permit Application Data —April 2016
Attachment B,— Number of Wellls in Butte County
Cc: Butte County Board of Supervisors
Senator Nielsen
Assemblyman Gallagher
Attachment A
Butte County Well Kermit Application Data April 2016
Small Diameter Wells-Permit Applications, Monthly Totals
ar oav r Year 8
Water Meor Oct NOV rbc Jan rob Mar Jun Jul Se Tu1a1
2000M 341 13 Is 1 136 19 26
07'- 24 14 B 18 14 2D 2B 19 tri 20 22 IN 2281
2000-�C UB 15 10 a 7 15 19 17 15 20 22 1 1761
2009- 17 10 B 13 10 11 21 U7 23 23 20 1 1
010 9 9 B 2 4 14 22 10 22 13 14 1401
011 7I 2 1 2' 4 B 4 14 1B B' 11 771
1 a 2 4, 10 a B 11' 1B 9 15' B 1
013, 9 10 2 1U 22 27 35 38 19 17 t
14 9 10 10 24 14 20 93 32
1
6-+G 10 7 B 15 11 22 27 15 13 1 17 7
h8 4 7 7 e 9 17 17
Applications for Small Diameter Wells
(Monthly Totals/Water Year)
40
3s
30m2012-IN
0 200.0
25 1; u1120,C4
f 201a-C
j
20 i; ®2016.1f�i D
I
r
Oct Nov Dec Jan rely Mar Apr M1ay tum Jul Aug Sep
CaCentdarYwA Month CalendarYearB
Applications for Small Diameter Wells
(Cumulative Totals/Water Year)
900
250
200
150
- —2013-D
100 s ` . ... .�_. 2014 C'
„ 2015-C
50
wuwa2016-TO
0
Ota NOV Dac Jan rely Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Calendar Year A Water Year Calenc ar Year B
Large Diameter Wells-Permit Applications, Monthly Totals
alcor Year -- r Yaw A
aaa tads MarMov r Yaw .JinnJulTotal
2 1 46 5
1 1 3,, 2 1
2 1 2 6 2 4
10 3 3 1 2, 1 2 1 1
Ui11• 3 1 3 2 1 2
2 1 9 4 1
2013:5 1 1 21 2 2 6 A
14 2 3 1S 12 10 6 21 51 6 B 71
15- S 7 4 i 4
%,6 akna 5 10 3 4 2 3 27
t6 C 4 6 4 4
3 6 4 1
Applications for Large Diameter Wells
(Monthly Totals/UWatar Year)
a
m 2012-BN
as
x,2013.11
x12014-C
xa aa2015•C
a 1111 2016 ApplIca11ans
a
d
a
0
Oct Nov Dec Fan Feb Mar Apr May Jain Jul Avg Sep
Calendar Year A month Calendar Year 6
Applications for Large Diameter Wells
(Cumulative Totals/Water Year)
as
r - -2011,w
as
f 1 lroa —IB-2019.9Ni
so 6 24 r19,iya
da i
"
ra 22 .M
�" �.� ..2015.e
20 15
� =
Oct NOV Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Cadendar Year A. Calendar Year 0
WaterVear
Well Repairs and Deepening-Permit Applications,Monthly Totals
afar Maar cohrndw Year A .. cakr9wr Yew 8
Oat I Nov Me Jon Fab Mar _!j, Mov Jun M Sao
.Q j — I
2DOO-0— 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 V
2M0 09- 1 2 2 3 IR2 1 4 1
O-BN
i 1 3 3 1 1 1 1
11-w 2 2 1 4
2012-SN I I I I i Z I In
2013.0
101115:9C 1 2 1
I t 11 3 21 1 11 31 4
2016-15L) 31 Y1 1 1 1 1 1 41
Applications for Well Repairs/Deepening
(Monthly Totals/Water Year)
...................
7
012011-W
®20124N
M201"
02014-C
02015-C
arZ
Oct Nov, Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun JU Aug Sep
CalendorYearA Month CWendarYearB
Applications for Well Repairs/Dieepening
(Cumulative Totals/Water Year)
10
16
14
11120
—m-2014-C
4 4 4 4 4 4 X-201S-C
4
006—I6I611bD
2
..........
Oct Nov Dei: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jud Aug Sep
Cad end ar Yen r A Water Year Uendar Year 8
Attachment B
Number of Wells in Butte County (Water Inventory and Analysis, 2018)
Number of Wells bV hnventorV Unit and SubinventorV Unit,
Inventory Subinventory Vltell Count
Unit Unit Domestic irrigation M&I Monitoring Other I Total
Biggs-West 208 93 8 21 24 354
Gridl!e
Butte 693 211 30 48 49 1,031
Butte Slink 3 14 0 6 2 25
Cherokee 110 79 4 8 17 1 218
East.Butte E s uon 339 122 4 10 36 511
P'entz 81 23 3 38 11 156
8ichvale 96 88 4 13 151 216
Therrnallto 223 1 82 17 48 1.13 483
Western Canal 46 84 4 10 13 157
Total 1,,799 796 74 202 280 3,151
Cohasset 269, 4 3 0 7 283
Ridge 42619 3 42 29 519
Foothill Other 2,742 63 31 88 96 3,020
Total 3,437 86 37 130 132 3,822
P Mountain Mountain 2,885 33 30 12 62 3',022
North Yuba (Worth Yuba 587 189 25 143 93 1,037
Vina Vina 2,297 651 83 211 266 3,508
Angel Slough 9 44 011 0 2 55
Durham/Da on 1,404 608 68 390 262 2,732.
Llano Seco 1 17 0 6 8 32
West Butte M&T 29 54 1 30 15 129
Western Canal 28 28 1 6 3 66
Total 1 1.,471 1 751 1 701 432 1 290 3,01.4
County Total 12,4761 2,506 3191 1,1340 1 1,123 117,554
Well Depths by inventory Unit and Subinventory Unit,
Well Completion Oepth(Feet)
Irri ation Domestic Municipal atnd Industrial
Inventory Unit 5ubinventory Unit Gaunt Min. Max. Mean Medlan Count Min. Max. Mean Median Count Mln. Max, Mean I Median.
BI s-'West Gridley 3 60 750 2431 203 208 32 323 99 91 8 55 381 1631 115
Butte. 211 35 983 165 140 693 19 399 86 80 30 35 439':11 199 200
Butte Sink 14 193 616 391 400 3 110 200 140 1191 0 NA NA NA NA
Cherokee 79 84 871 426 468 110 26 630 178 153 4 110 475 286 279
East Butte EsquoPentzn 1221 621 3 376 334 23 93, 535 300 275 3 266 255
81 43 705 201 155 3 97 735391 251 320 1311� 121 4 93 460
479 605
Richvale 881 8 692 2891 260 96 40 310' 113 105 4 1371 180 164 169
Theralito 82 361 463 1851 148 223 30 700 120 100 17 55 275 1281 104
Western Canal 84 109 880 511, 540 46 50 500 157 133 4 87 215 166 181
Total 796 35 983 292 274 1,7991 19 705 114 102 74 35 735 195 190
Cohasset 4 117 6001 439 520 269 251 960 3141 215 3 300' 857 617 695
Foothill Ride 19 69, 875 228 17-6 416 18 1030 345 265 3 132 600 334 271
Other 63 30 875' 291 200 2,742 19 1,060 266 200 31 37 9301 447 430
Total 86 30 875 284 199 3 437 18 1060 279 209 37 37 9340 452 439
Mountain Mountain 33 45 600 291 900 2,885 111,010 240 200 30 100 970 279 240
North Yuba North Yuba 189 28 656 294 278 5871 25 990 140 120 251 64 600 195 185
Vina ylna 6511 401,050 327 248 2,2971 141 940 1491 140 831 33 830 454 525
Angel Sloh 44 60 367 211 213 9' 351 125 88 1O0 01 NA NA NA.I NA
Durham/Dayton 608 60 750 356 337 1,404 151 800 146 130 68 361 924 396 399
West Butte lianas Seco 17 175 905 411 390 1 56 56 56 56 0 NA NA NA NA
M&T 54 52 920 444 460 29 54 640 161 140 1 710 710 710 710
WesternCanal 28 109 880 516 555 28 67 5491 1651 100 1 420 420 420 420
Total 751 52 920 361 347 1,471 15 800 147 129 70 36 924 401 404
County Total 2,5061 28FI,0501 3201 27012,476 111,060 200 1461 3191 33 970 3451 275